Quote:1. A total of boiler south Loginov was about 4.5 thousand. People from the original group of 8-9 thousand. Man. The group was in fact cracked in half. A key success was a surprise attack on Uglegorsk, after which the events went in our favor after an unsuccessful offensive in the Svetlodarsk. Slippage in the attack were formed as a consequence of combat problems of interaction of various compounds, lack of ammunition and heavy equipment in some parts of the army LC, as well as due to the stubborn resistance of a number of parts of the junta, which was higher than expected.

2. After the occupation of the group "Olkhon" Logvinova, there were transferred part GRU DNR, which reflected the stubborn battles offensive deblocking groups, destroying 18 armored vehicles. In the fighting commandos suffered serious losses - 5 people were killed and more than 30 were injured (losses were mainly from heavy artillery). In fact, the action of "Olkhon" (capture Logvinova) and GRU DNR (saved a counterattack Logvinova) determined the success of the entire debaltsevskoy operation, which for some time has stalled in the area Mironovka. It is worth noting that the defenders of the Red Plowman its defense preserved for VSN important position, which can be used to surround Svetlodarsk enemy force.

3. So to get out of the environment - part of the junta's forces out of the ring leaving behind heavy weaponry in agreement (ie, the same situation as the type Starobeshevo when to exit Ilovaisky boiler bursting junta handed over to the militia group all of the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles), part of the forces tried to break free coordination (both under Ilovaiskaya) and crumbled - again some idiots decided that agreement (yield in exchange for the surrender of equipment) do not concern them. In captivity got up to 500 people, approximately the same number seeped through fields and back roads north of the M-103, partly on foot. Most of the heavy weapons just thrown in the boiler (either by agreement or simple escape from the boiler, so really a lot of trophies). Total of environment came hodgepodge of parts 1-1.5 battalion. The boiler threw almost all the artillery, armored vehicles and most of the significant amount of ammunition. All stories about organized output is propaganda bullshit.

4. About the loss of the junta, the figure is closer to reality in 1200-1500 killed in the battles for Debaltsevsky ledge, our losses not specifically voiced to me, but they were still very significant, and in others (the brunt of the losses came at the end of January) and engineering ( on technique but trophies are more than block the damages). During the operation the main damaging factor as previously remained artillery and MLRS. Our gunners in some way to "shoot" huntovskih under Debaltseve.

In general, debaltsevskaya epic succeeds, the group suffered a complete defeat of the junta and in the next few days we can talk about the end of the battle for Debaltseve and at the same time a winter campaign in 2015. Results of the offensive and the battle for Debaltseve announced in the coming days. Plus a great video of a Chernukhin.

Paul Rigby Wrote:German newspaper BILD gets inside US-NATO-Nuland planning session

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/german-newspaper-bild-gets-inside-us.html

Das Bild, published February 19, 2015: http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/muenchner-sicherheitskonferenz/was-us-politiker-ueber-deutschland-denken-39678276.bild.html

The Bild headline:"Cold Feet" "Bullshit," "Angst"
What US Politicians REALLY think about the Germans in the Ukraine-crisis

Quote:February 19, 2015
Translated from German by Tom Winter

Munich While a bloody war rages in eastern Ukraine, the next dangerous conflict is breaking out in the Security Conference, a diplomatic battle of nerves centered on the question whether the West ought to supply armaments to the regime in Kiev. The opponents are actually allies: the USA against Europe, and Germany in particular.

Behind the soundproof doors of the conference room in the Bayerischer Hof hotel, the Americans speak about Germans in rather derogatory terms.

Friday evening a bit after 7 p.m. on the sixth floor of the luxury hotel, according to BILD's sources, American four-star generals, diplomats, and high-ranking US politicians held a frank discussion in a "briefing room," and held forth about the Germans.

"Defeatist," is what a US Senator called German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, because she no longer believes in a Kiev victory. The phrase "German defeatist," according to our information, was often heard in the room

Obama's top diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland, called the Chancellor's trip to Putin, "Merkel's Moscow thing." Another US Foreign office type spoke of the Europeans' "Moscow bullshit."

And US Senator John McCain talked himself into a rage: "History shows us that dictators always take more, whenever you let them. They can't be brought back from their brutal behavior when you fly to Moscow to them, just like someone once flew to this city."

Merkel's diplomatic initiative in the Ukraine crisis stands at the center of American anger. Reason: the Americans don't believe that Putin can't be made to back off without a massive push, and the Europeans have no wish to build up a greater push.

"They're afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia," said Nuland. Another US politician: "It's painful to see that our NATO partners are getting cold feet."

Obama's close confidante Victoria Nuland is the one who set the tone for her American colleagues at the prelude to the evening: "We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them."

Several US politicians appeared to have hesitations about weapons supply to Kiev. One asked whether it was only a tactic, a false promise to get the Europeans to put more pressure on Putin. "No, it's not a tactic to push the Europeans," answered Nuland dryly. "We're not going to sent any four divisions into Ukraine, as the Europeans fear. It's only a relatively moderate delivery of anti-tank weapons."

"But what will we tell the Europeans if we really decide on delivering weapons," asked one Congressman. "What's our story then?"

NATO Commander General Philip Breedlove was there. He answered: "We're not on a footing to deliver so many weapons they could defeat Russia [!!! tr] That's not our goal. But we have to try to raise the battlefield cost for Putin, to slow down the whole problem, so sanctions and other measures can take hold."

Again top diplomat Nuland, who speaks fluent Russian and served as Dick Cheney's security advisor took it up: "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase defensive systems' that we would deliver to oppose Putin's offensive systems.'"

General Breedlove clarified for the US politicians, what an actual arms delivery would look like. "Russian artillery is by far what kills most Ukrainian soldiers, so a system is needed that can localize the source of fire and repress it. Ukrainian communications are disrupted or completely swamped, so they need uninterceptible communications gear. Then I won't talk about any anti-tank rockets, but we are seeing massive supply convoys from Russia into Ukraine. The Ukrainians need the capability to shut off this transport. And then I would add some small tactical drones."

NB: These planned weapons and systems are so technically demanding that US soldiers would probably have to train the Ukrainian army. Thus the USA would be intervening with their own troops in the conflict.


There hasn't been this much conflict between Europeans and Americans since the Munich Security conference of 2003, shortly before the beginning of the Iraq war. In the morning Chancellor Angela Merkel travels to Washington to US President Barak Obama. The two have much to discuss…

Translator's note: This material is visible throughout the German press, and it all comes back to this article in Das Bild, and the source for this Bild article had to be German Intelligence. The German press is full of praise for their peace-making Chancellor, and apparently the Chancellory is committed to making Minsk II a success. Further, this item removes, and was doubtless intended to remove, any doubts about NATO being a US instrument. Also to be noted here is a complete zeroing out of the five or six million Russian-speaking inhabitants of Lugansk and Donetsk; they don't exist, it's just Russia.

Quote:

Ukrainegate: NATO weapons for truce




VOLTAIRE NETWORK | MOSCOW (RUSSIA) | 19 FEBRUARY 2015

Ukrainian Pres. Petro Poroschenko touches the Saxon's thin armor.Photo via Accidents NewsInitially it seemed surprising that on the first day of the negotiations marathon [1] in Minsk a bill to "provide lethal weapons to the Government of Ukraine in order to defend itself against Russian-backed rebel separatists in eastern Ukraine" would be introduced in the US Congress [2]. However, it soon became clear that its sponsor, Sen. James Inhofe, simply harbors no illusions [3] about his Ukrainian partners' competence or ability to comply with their obligations. He understands that Kiev will inevitably violate the cease-fire and that Washington will soon have to explain why the militias in the devastated region of what is known as the "Debaltsevo cauldron" [4] are in possession of such a vast number of captured weapons originating from NATO countries.And there can be no doubts whatsoever that this will happen. The militia continues to provide documented evidence of Kiev's use of NATO-standard weapons, such as Paladin M109 self-propelled howitzers, portable Javelin anti-tank weapons systems, and small arms (M16 rifles and much more).Video taken in Gorlovka on Feb.1, 2015. Life News reports that the Christian cathedral in the centre of town was shelled by 155mm cannons of a US-made Paladin howitzer.Video taken at Donetsk airport on Jan 18, 2015 presenting piles of NATO light weapons left by the Ukrainian soldiers.Ukrainian TV report (Sept 2014) on Western military assistance to Ukraine. Javelin anti-tank weapons and other systems presented.The age and condition of these weapons suggests that the West is simply selling Ukraine military equipment that was already destined for the recycling bin. For example, Britain first produced its Saxon armored personnel carriers in 1983, and they were removed from service in 2008. Now they are being shipped [5] through the port of Odessa to the company Ukroboronprom, which will adapt them to the needs of the Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian government is spending about $51,000 on each Saxon AT-105. It is worth noting that due to the all-out crisis situation there, the Ukrainians have vetoed the idea of producing their own Dozor-B armored carrier.According to official statistics, before 2007 the German army possessed 570 M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzers. But not a single one remains. Where do you think those tanks went? The answer is simple in December 2014, Ukrainian officials suddenly closed the airports in Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kharkov because of the ostensible threat of Russian paratroopers (!), while several of NATO's C-17B Globemaster and C-130 Hercules military transport planes landed there. Eyewitnesses in Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk saw four self-propelled Paladin howitzers (and boxes of their ammunition) being unloaded. Witnesses in Kharkov claim two Romanian LAROM MLRS and a Spanish Teruel-3 were transported there.Military convoys that have been regularly crossing the Polish-Ukrainian border since the summer of 2014 are arriving at the 169th Training Center of the Ukrainian ground forces in the Chernihiv region, where instructors from NATO countries are conducting workshops with soldiers serving in Ukraine's security forces, in order to train them on NATO weapons and equipment. Polish General Bogusław Pacek is leading the group of NATO advisers in Ukraine.Polish General Bogusław Pacek is leading the group of NATO advisers in Ukraine since September 2014.The incompetence of the Ukrainian army, as well as the question of provisioning them, is a very serious problem. NATO weapons systems are difficult to operate and require large quantities of the proper ammunition, which is not manufactured in Ukraine. But channels for delivering such ammunition to Ukraine have already been established. For example, in early February the cargo shipYasar Abi [6]sailed from Burgas (Bulgaria) to the port of Oktyabrsk (the Mykolaiv region, Ukraine) carrying a load of 680 tons of NATO and old Soviet ammunition.So Senator Inhofe's bill is not about rendering military assistance to the puppet government in Kiev, but is rather a way to legitimize the shipments that are already being sent. As usual, only the most aged, decrepit weapons are ending up in the region where the anti-terror operation is underway meaning that Ukrainian officials are re-exporting [7] everything that is worthy of resale to third countries, including Syria. No one can guarantee that the weapons that will pass to Ukraine legally will not soon be used against America's interests in global hot spots. However, it seems that this threat is the last thing on the minds of US senators.
Source
Oriental Review ] &notes=] ]


[1] "Marathon talks produce Ukraine peace deal; cease-fire Sunday", Yuras Karmanau & Jim Heitz, AFP, February 12, 2015.[2] "A bill to provide lethal weapons to the Government of Ukraine in order to defend itself against Russian-backed rebel separatists in eastern Ukraine", James Inhofe, Congress.gov, 11 February, 2015.[3] "Here's The Ukrainian Delegation That Gave Misleading Photos To Senator's Office", Rosie Gray, BuzzFeed News, February 13, 2005.[4] "What's Cooking in the Debaltsevo Cauldron?", Riley Waggaman, Russia Insider, February 17, 2015.[5] "Britain's Ugliest Cold War Vehicle Is Back … In Ukraine", Thomas Newdick, Medium.com, February 17, 2015.[6] "Yasar Abi IMO 8922395", Vessel Finder.[7] "Where will the US arms for Ukraine actually end up?", Andrey Polevoy, Oriental Review, February 11, 2015.

Quote:I have not yet had time to read the entire report by the House of Lords EU sub-committee on Russia, which can be accessed here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf

but I do urge my readers to study it, especially the section beginning on page 53. the crisis in Ukraine and the EU's response'. I suspect the whole thing has benefited by the presence on the sub-committee of Lord (Norman) Lamont, who knows a thing or two about the EU. There is also quite an impressive list of witnesses, who might be expected to know what they were talking about, including Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech republic, and Sir Tony Brenton, former British ambassador in Moscow.

But it also has a pleasingly sober willingness to examine things that are generally ignored in the Putin is Hitler' hysteria which has engulfed so much of politics and the media.

In his evidence, Mr Klaus said some very interesting things (it is easily found by clicking on the red numbers opposite his name in the list of witnesses)

For example , after opening by saying : I am also no a prioristic advocate or defender of Russia or Mr Putin due to our communist experience. I am the last one to be motivated to speak positively about that country. However, our life with communism taught us something. Since then, I have always tried to oppose lies and manipulative propaganda, which I see in this case just now.

He then says :Moreover, in April in our commentary on the situation in Ukraine we stated that Ukraine was a heterogeneous, divided country, and that an attempt to forcefully and artificially change its geopolitical orientation would inevitably result in its break-up, if not its destruction. We considered the country too fragile and with too weak an internal coherence to try to make a sudden change. I am sorry to say that it developed according to our expectations. I am afraid that Ukraine was sort of misused. The West suddenly and unexpectedly offered Ukraine early EU affiliation.

I am afraid that the West, especially western Europe, has accepted a very simplified interpretation of events in Ukraine. According to the West, the Ukraine crisis has been caused by external Russian aggression. The internal causes of the crisis have been ignored, and so are the evident ethnic, ideological and other divisions in Ukraine.

The developments that have taken place since the spring of this year have proved that this approach cannot lead to a solution of the problem. It only deepens the division of the country, increases the tragic costs of its crisis and further destabilises the country. So I do not see that the politicians in Ukraine are looking for a political solution. They do not have any compromise proposals that they could offer to the people of eastern Ukraine to win their confidence. They rely on fighting, on repression and on unrealistic expectations of western economic and military aid.'

He then adds: I cannot see inside the heads of leading Russian politicians but I do not believe that Russia wanted or needed this to happen. My understanding is that Russia was dragged into it. Dragging Russia into the conflict is a way of making Ukraine a permanent hotspot of global tensions and creating permanent instability in a country that deserves, after decades of suffering under communism, a quiet and positive evolution.'

He says (Q.211) that he suspects that the EU had got into the habit of making vague future promises of EU memevrship to Ukraine .

But this answer , from a leading statesman of a formerly-Communist Central European state, who cannot conceivably be accused of being a Kremlin stooge or of desiring the return of the USSR, is absolutely gripping:

I am afraid that just reading the misleading headlines in the media and watching CNN or BBC news is giving such a distorted picture of the situation. I am afraid that the knowledge is missing. I was shocked two weeks ago. There was a long interview with a 21 year-old Ukrainian student in Prague, a lady from western Ukraine. She was on the side of western Ukraine politically. A question was put to her: "What about the Crimea?". She was a 21 year-old student abroad, which means that she was a literate person. "I visited Crimea for the first time in my life last year, when I was 20, and I was absolutely shocked that no one understood my language. They supposed that I am from Moldova". For me it was eye-opening that there was such a problem. The eastern part of the country is really, really different, and the question is whether we can help.

I would suggest one thing in a negative sense: do not support the Maidan demonstrations in an unconditional way. That is the best recommendation that I would dare to give to anyone in western Europe and in Britain.'

The report itself, in the passage I named above, also shows quite clearly that the EU simply did not take seriously the Russian objections to the Association Agreement . Nor did it understand or take seriously Russia's very real fears about the possible cancellation of the treaty by which it retained fleet basing rights at Sevastopol.

There is, of course the general problem about so many people in the West assuming that Russia's supine, stunned posture under Yeltsin after 1991 was normal and likely to endure. A Russian witness, Fyodor Lukyanov, said the European Commission never showed any interest in discussing Russia's concerns over the planned agreement.

The Russians never even saw the planned text until the summer of 2013, and plainly assumed that a resolution was still a long way off, not least because the EU were still very hostile to Ukraine because of the continued imprisonment of Yulia Timoshenko.

Even so, there was alarm. Another Russian official witness, Dmitriy Poliyanskiy, said The detail in the annexes "clearly showed to [the Russians] that with such an agreement Ukraine would no longer be able to maintain the same level of relations" with Russia'.

And from August Russia began to fight against it, using coercive economic diplomacy'. Andrii Kuzmenko, Ukrainian Acting Ambassador to the UK, spoke of a "number of different wars'a customs war, a gas war, a milk war, a meat war, cheese war, a chocolate war", which "the Russians started against Ukraine with the solemn purpose of pursuing us to postpone and then refuse European integration."

No doubt these Russian methods were unpleasant. But the point is that they were a reaction to an EU initiative. And by November 2013, Russian hostility to the agreement was so obvious and fierce that the EU were at last aware of it. Whether they understood its depth and power is another matter.

Paragraph 181 is worth quoting in full : Mr John Lough, Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House (Britain's premier foreign affairs think tank), informed us that Russia "suddenly woke up" to the challenge, having believed the AA to be "a totally under-resourced and hopeless initiative that was being conducted by an organisation with so many divisions in it."266 Mr Lukyanov agreed that Russia was surprised that the signature was imminent, because the situation in Ukraine"corruption, dysfunction" and the detention of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenkosuggested that Ukraine was far from meeting the requisite conditions. However, when the issue of Tymoshenko's fate was "removed from the picture and the decision was made that it should be signed anyway", then "Russia woke up'.

There's some dispute about whether, at this stage, the EU was ready to listen Russia's concerns.

In any case, the putsch against Yanukovych followed soon afterwards. The report recounts By February, Sir Tony Brenton explained, the "Russians had decided that there was a great western plot against them, probably more American than EU, to displace them from their oldest and closest friend, Ukraine". 291 The trope of a western-fomented plot was one that recurred in Russian political thinking: in the words of Dr Alexander Libman, Associate of Eastern Europe and Eurasia Division, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, in the "eyes of the Russian leadership, Euromaidan is just one more step in the sequence of events, which were initiated by the West'".

This was greatly reinforced by moves in Kiev to de-privilege the Russian language, and to make NATO membership a Ukrainian national strategy.

But most pressing of all was the issue of Sevastopol,. Paragrph 193 relates:

In particular, Moscow feared that the 2010 Kharkiv Agreements, which had extended the Russian Navy's lease of Sevastopol as a base for 25 years from 2017 until 2042, would be renounced. Professor Roy Allison has pointed out that even in 2010 "President Yanukovych's approval of this extension was virulently opposed by Ukrainian opposition politicians, suggesting that efforts may well be made to revise it in the future." On 1 March 2014, three former Ukrainian Presidents, Leonid Kravchuk, Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yushchenko, called on the new government to renounce the Kharkiv Agreements. Mr Lukyanov said that President Putin's "real motivation was national security and the risk that the new rule in Kiev would very quickly denounce" the agreements of 2010 that prolonged Russia's base in Crimea for 25 years.'

I think that is very probably the case. Here's a good line, too Sir Tony Brenton said that "the assumption that the Russians don't like this but they will probably live with it' was reasonably consistent with the Russia that we thought we had prior to the Maidan revolution."

Yes, the Russia we thought we had'. But that Russia had been, for many years, an illusion. President Putin's speech in Munich in February 2007 was a clear change of tone, for anyone who wanted to know. But it was ignored. In the end, we tested him by action, and found that , after all, he did bite, and his bite was worse than his bark his bark, an unusual thing in modern politics. Now we complain about hs teeth, but is that a rational attitude towards events.

Quote:
New Video Evidence of America's Coup in Ukraine and What it Means

By Eric Zuesse / Global ResearchFebruary 20th, 2015no responses





New video evidence has been added to the already-conclusive video evidence which shows that the U.S. Government was the controlling power behind the extremely violent and illegal 18-27 February 2014 Ukrainian coup, which overthrew the democratically elected and never legally removed-from-power Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
This new evidence proves, even more than before (if that were even possible to do), that the current regime in Ukraine is definitely illegal but that's not all. Even after fake democratic' elections, it's the same illegal regime in Ukraine that the U.S. imposed at its February 2014 coup, because no nationwide vote has occurred in Ukraine throughout that country's expanse after the American coup; it's still just a rump-Ukrainian Government, not one representing the residents either in Crimea or in Ukraine's far east (neither of which regions participated in Ukrainian elections after the coup) and yet this illegal violent coup-imposed Ukrainian regime (and the U.S. that imposed it, and even the EU that sheepishly backed it) nonetheless demand (against all legalities) that this blatantly illegal U.S.-imposed Ukrainian Government must control those areas, which reject this nazi imposed Government that the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych don't have the right to self-determination, but must instead accept a coup that goes exactly against, and even has gone so far as to overthrow, the Government for which the residents in those regions had overwhelmingly voted.
This was a violent takeover of the Ukrainian Government, by profoundly racist anti-Russian nationalist Ukrainians, who were in the pay of the U.S. Government. And, it sparked such terror into the hearts of Russians and of Ukraine's minorities (who were especially large a proportion of the Crimean population), so that, first, Crimea broke away and declared its no longer being a part of Ukraine (it would return to Russia, of which it had been a part from 1783-1954, almost its entire modern existence); and, then, starting on May 9th of 2014, a Ukrainian civil war broke out when the U.S.-installed Government of Ukraine actually invaded the regions (other than Crimea) that rejected it; and the United States oversaw and sent even more mercenaries to this extremely bloody ethnic cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in the specific region (called "Donbass" and shown in dark purple on this map) of Ukraine that had voted 90% for Yanukovych.
This was the first outright nazi action ever undertaken by any American President. Ever. That's how bad it is, as a historical precedent for this country. It is being carried out by proud racist fascists (nazis), who are specifically admirers and followers of Adolf Hitler's Nazis, which were the first, the original, nazi political party, and which are the pattern for Obama's operatives in Ukraine the perpetrators of this coup and its subsequent (also totally illegal) ethnic-cleansing campaign. (For examples: all these firebombings that Obama's forces are doing to the residents in Donbass are against international law.) These Ukrainian nazis even send their children to nazi schools where kids are trained to hate Russians.
Obama uses these people; he found this extermination of pro-Russians in Ukraine to be necessary; so as to get rid of the voters whose votes had made Yanukovych President. In Donbass, 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych; so, this was the prime area to be ethnically cleansed (and sometimes they're driven at night to the countryside and shot at the edge of a ditch). If those voters were ever again allowed to vote in Ukraine, then a pro-Russian government could again be elected in Ukraine, and Obama's action in that country (his turning it rabidly anti-Russian in its policies) could thus turn out to have been a mere waste for him just a temporary matter. The strategy here is carefully thought-out, and this is also one reason why it has the support of almost every member of the U.S. House and Senate (even though 67% of the American public oppose it). A similar strategy would be as if Obama were to firebomb and otherwise lay waste Utah because it had voted in the 2012 election 73% for Romney and only 25% for Obama, and so killing the residents there would increase the future chances of electing a Democratic President in the U.S. But in Donbass, Yanukovych had actually won 90% of the vote, not a mere 73%; and, besides, nobody in the U.S. and its allies is even so much as criticizing Obama's exterminations of the residents in Donbass (the people that Obama's Ukrainian Government calls "terrorists" for simply living there), but instead Vladimir Putin is being criticized in the West for his "Russian aggression," because he helps those forlorn people defend themselves from the Obama team's firebombs, clusterbombs, bullets, and other killing-machines. (And here's one of the Obama team's firebombings of the city of Donetsk just a few days ago.)
The nazi United States Government today is ideologically, by its nazi actions, at war against the democratic United States that, by its democratic actions, had fought and shed blood to defeat Hitler's Nazis in World War II. (And unlike the firebombing of Nazi Dresden in February 1945 Donetsk and the Obama team's other Donbass targets are anti-nazi; the U.S. is this time the nazi invader, via its local Ukrainian surrogates. This is not to say that any firebombing should be allowed, but just to say that America has ideologically switched sides since then, which is atrocious.) Of course, there have been nazis in America even before Hitler came to power in Germany; but they were not running the U.S. Government until now; and, now, for the first time ever, the U.S. has itself a nazi Government, which is backed up by nazi American think tanks and media, etc., the entire panoply of political horror. The chief difference from Hitler's (other than that this nazi government hasn't yet gone as far toward its ultimate objectives as Hitler's did) is that this one hates and seeks to destroy mainly Russians, whereas Hitler's focused mainly against Jews. However, this one seems to be just about as obsessive about eliminating Russians as Hitler's was about eliminating Jews. In fact, Obama's hatred of Russia explains not only his Ukrainian policy but also his Syrian policy. Furthermore, Iran is also allied with Russia, and American policy there too might partly be a reflection of Obama's bigotry against Russia it should instead be a reflection of strictly U.S.-Iranian issues. Understanding Obama's foreign policies without recognizing his vicious (and until fairly recently, secret) anti-Russian obsession, which is proven by his actions (not his rhetoric, which is basically dishonest and should simply be ignored except as his PR) can't be done: it produces only misunderstanding (which is the real purpose behind most of his rhetoric).
So, this new item of evidence, which was posted to youtube on 27 January 2015, shows a courageous member of the "Rada" or Ukraine's parliament, Oleg Tsarev, on 20 November 2013, and you can see the video's (broken) English translation transcript, by clicking there on "More." This is a parliamentary speech, in which he says (and I've cleaned up the translation here, only to make it easier to understand):

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people, activists from the Volya Public Organization turned to me, providing clear evidence that within our country, with support and direct participation of the US Embassy in Kiev, a "TechCamp" project is under way in which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine. The "TechCamp" project prepares specialists for information warfare and for the discrediting of state institutions [the Government] using modern media potential revolutionaries for organizing protests and the toppling of the Government. This project is overseen by and currently under the responsibility of the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the Volya Organization, I learned that they actually succeeded to access facilities in the "TechCamp" project [they had hacked into it] disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, were found briefings that were held on peculiarities of modern media. American instructors explained there how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate potential protest to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine radicalization of the population, and triggering of infighting. American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. "Tech Camp" representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine. A total of five events have been held so far. About 300 people have been trained as operatives, who are now active throughout Ukraine. The last conference took place on 14 and 14 November 2013, in the heart of Kiev, inside the US Embassy! You tell me which country in the world would allow an NGO to operate out of the US Embassy? This is disrespectful to the Ukrainian Government, and against the Ukrainian people! I thus appeal to the constitutional authorities of Ukraine with the following question: Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy who organize the "TechCamp" conferences misuse their diplomatic immunity? [Someone tries to interrupt him.] A UN Resolution of 21 December 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal "affairs of any State, and protects its independence and sovereignty. I urge that there be an official investigation into this matter.

Wikipedia's "Timeline of the Euromaidan" starts on 21 November 2013, the day after Tsarev's speech. It says there:

Euromaidan started in the night of 21 November 2013 when up to 2,000 protesters gathered at Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti and began to organize themselves with the help of social networks.[7] After he heard of the Ukrainian government decree to Yatsenyuk government,"suspend preparations for signing of the Association Agreement on 21 November 2013,[8][9] opposition party Batkivshchyna faction leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk called, via Twitter, for protests (which he dubbed as #Euromaidan) on Maidan Nezalezhnosti.[10]

Of course, Yatsenyuk was the person who, in a 4 February 2014 phone-conversation between Victoria Nuland of Obama's State Department and Mr. Pyatt of her Kiev Embassy, she told Pyatt was to be selected by him, as the head of the coup-Government that would become installed during the coup, which extended from 18-27 February 2014. (In other words: the coup started two weeks after that phone-conversation in which the new leader had already been selected.)
The CIA edits wikipedia articles, and so the title of the wikipedia article on the coup is "2014 Ukrainian revolution,"not "2014 Ukrainian coup." Also because of the CIA's editing, the date of Yatsenyuk's official appointment to head the Government is buried, instead of being featured in that article (as it should be). The day-by-day account given there starts on 18 February, and ends on 21 February. Then comes: "Deal's Aftermath." Then, after yet 9 more such sections, comes "Lustration," which mentions the new leader's appointment only in passing: "On 26 February 2014, Ehor Sobolev was nominated to lead the Committee on Lustration' in the new Yatsenyuk Government." In other words: the appointment, and the official installation, of "Yats" to run the new Government, isn't even so much as mentioned in that article. If one clicks there on "Yatsenyuk government," then one comes to an article that opens: "The first government headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk was created in Ukraine on 27 February 2014 in the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution.[1] The cabinet was formed as a coalition of the parties Batkivschyna, UDAR and Svoboda and the parliamentary factions Economic Development and Sovereign European Ukraine and other independent MPs.[1]" Nothing is said there about the new Government's domination by nazis (who were selected by Victoria Nuland's man "Yats"). The rest of the article is just as deceptive, in the standard way: by avoiding to state the things that are the most important to state in order for a reader to be able to understand or interpret the given matter accurately. In other words: It's written for deception.
The time when this speech was delivered by Tsarev is also extremely significant: The very next day, Yanukovych rejected the EU's deal. On 21 November 2013, the reporter for Britain's Guardian headlined online, "Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war," and he reported that "Ukraine has abruptly ditched its plans to sign a historic pact with the European Union aimed at shifting the country out of the Kremlin's orbit." What Tsareve was saying on November 20th was that the U.S. had geared up long before that decision by Yanukovych, to overthrow him if he didn't cave to the pressures from the U.S. and its allies, and that the "Euromaidan" demonstrations which immediately thereafter became stage-setting for America's coup against him, were extremely well planned in advance, and constituted only the democratic' cover for the coup and would be nothing more than that which turned out to be the case.
Oleg Tsarev, the man who warned parliament one day prior to the start of the Euromaidan demonstrations, was subsequently, in mid-May of 2014, phoned by the oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, a friend of the Obama White House, and he was told to leave Ukraine or else he would be killed because some unnamed individual(s) had placed a million-dollar price on his head. Tsarev didn't comply. (His courage was remarkable: he had already survived a beating by a nazi crowd on 15 April 2014. Speaking truth to power was his characteristic way.) Instead, Tsarev became elected to the parliament in one of the two breakaway new republics constituting Donbass. On 19 December 2014, Tsarev wrote that the Ukrainian Government was failing miserably all Ukrainians, not only in the areas that had left Ukraine; and he also mentioned, in passing, that, in one of Kolomoysky's businesses,"Kolomoysky delivers cheesy vests for the price of gold chain mail." Here's what that passing reference meant: On 11 August 2014, "Life News" in Russia had headlined, "Ukrainian Ministry of Defense spent $ 3.5 million on substandard body armor" and reported that, in a no-bid deal with Ukraine's army, the insider Kolomoysky had sold to the army substandard fake bulletproof vests, which they couldn't use, and which were moreover priced at twice the going rate for real bulletproof vests. Kolomoysky then stole one of the Tsarev family's own businesses, but there was no legal recourse, because Kolomoysky had been appointed by Obama's people as the local governor in the region where that business happened to be located.
So: Obama is treated as if he is a respectable person, while Putin is treated as if he had been the aggressor in all this. But there was once a time when the differences between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were ideological, and the U.S. was an authentic democratic nation, and the U.S.S.R. was an authentic communist dictatorship; and, in that time, and specifically back in 1962, it was the U.S.S.R. that was seeking to place nuclear missiles near to us (in Cuba), not like now, when the dictatorial U.S. is instead trying to place nuclear missiles near to democratic Russia (inside Ukraine). Did America's major news media, back at that earlier time, think that what the U.S.S.R. was trying to do to us was tolerable, and should be permitted? Of course not! So: why their double standard now? Or is today's U.S. instead a totally different country, an outright nazi one now, against Russia? Even if Russia were a dictatorship (and it's probably less so than the U.S. now is), what America is trying to do to it is disgraceful. And what the U.S. Government is trying to do to the residents in Donbass is absolutely outrageous, and should be presented to the International Criminal Court for war-crimes trials. (Maybe that's why the U.S. has refused to sign to the Court's jurisdiction; maybe G.W. Bush and Obama were intending to commit international war crimes.)
America (and its client Ukraine) is the aggressor; Russia (and its client Donbass) is doing what it needs to do in order to defend themselves from the U.S. and its allies: there are 27 of those other nations in the U.S.-run Russia-hating club; it's called NATO, and it needs to be disbanded immediately, because its constructive function ended when the Soviet Union did; and, afterwards, it's just nazi, and is a huge threat against the entire world.
This new evidence from Tsarev, piled on top of all the other evidence that already proved the assertion by the founder of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor, that the overthrow of Yanukovych was "the most blatant coup in history,"simply cements the reality, that all of the sanctions against Russia, and all of the "me too" statements supporting Obama's coup and ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, by David Cameron, Stephen Harper, and Obama's other co-nazis, are abominations, which should be loudly condemned by all decent persons in all countries. The aggressor here is Obama, not Putin; and NATO must end, now: all decent nations should quit it ASAP. (War crimes trials against Obama and his agents should follow. After all: these people are bringing the world closer to a nuclear war than has been the case since 1962, and there is no decent reason for it.)
Here was Professor Francis Boyle, the most internationally prestigious authority on such matters, summing it all up:

Boyle told RIA Novosti on May 8: 'The Ukrainian crisis had been planned as well as the war. There was a war plan, there was a war game. Then it was revised and implemented. … We are seeing steps now being taken that were planned in advance,' Boyle said, adding, This is all being used as a pretext to bring NATO military forces, as Rasmussen said, by air, sea, and land right up to the borders of the Russian Federation. They are clearly going ahead with this.'
Boyle extolled Russia for trying to exhaust all diplomatic means possible to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and accused the United States and NATO of deliberate escalation.
So that the US won't be provided with any more pretexts for hostile provocative maneuvers that they are going to take in any event,' Boyle asserted, … Russian President Vladimir Putin is in a very difficult and dangerous situation and needs to be very careful. The US has already resumed the Cold War with the neo-Nazi coup d'état in Ukraine that the United States sponsored, controlled, and directed,' he said.

It's still not too late for the condemnation by the entire decent world to come down upon the leading nazis and force them to stop, before they blow the entire habitable world up with their evil.
Never before in the history of the world have the proofs of perfidy come so voluminously and so much in current time, as has now happened here, in the Age of the Internet. One doesn't have to wait for places like Auschwitz to open up to the world before the evil is laid bare for all to see: it already has been, well before things get that far. Thus, what's desperately needed now is action: the condemnation, by the publics, in all countries, against those nazis.
The time for the collecting of evidence is already past. The evidence is already here. There are already international war crimes enough, and so no need exists for us to await the ultimate one a totally unnecessary nuclear war before finally acting.
To start with: the sanctions against Russia must end immediately. They are crimes that can end fast. And they must, in order for the prosecutions against the perpetrators to start, and in order for this nazi cancer upon humanity to be removed before it's too late to be able to do that. The patient might already be in the emergency room.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.